Before today, I'd never heard of your channel. I searched Andrea Risebrough because I wanted to hear an in-depth take on the controversy and your video showed up in the search. Having said that, I really enjoyed your take on this. I thought it was fair and objective. I say, more power to Andrea Riseborough and her team. They used social media to circumvent the typical Oscar campaign tactics and it worked to their advantage. I'm sure that starting next year, the rules regarding this will be more specific, but for now, I don't think they did anything wrong.
I love how half this video is Dan going deep into which celebrities are friends with each other, and in literally any other context I would have never imagined myself every being so thoroughly engaged with that kind of info/drama.
Thanks for this video Dan. Andrea herself is only guilty of her albeit unconventional campaign succeeding in getting her a nomination while Viola and Danielle’s campaigning did not. There are complicated and deeper issues at play here that go far beyond Andrea getting nominated for a stellar performance. Naturally, she has become the face of the controversy but like you said, Ana and Michelle Williams still getting nominated while Viola and Danielle did not is equally as important to the discussion at hand here.
Blonde literally hurt my stomach to watch - not the fault of Ana. And The academy probably consists of Spielberg’s bffs- those truly are the controversies if there is one. Michelle Williams has come a long way from Dawson’s creek but Oscar nom for Best Actress ? A bit of a stretch.
I watched To Leslie before the Oscar nominations as it was ranked in the year's top ten movies on Rotten Tomatoes. Andrea Riseborough's performance was fantastic, definitely worthy of a nomination, and I was pleased to see it given recognition. Ultimately the Oscar nominations should be the year's best performances no matter the budget of the film or the budget of the Oscar campaign.
Thank you so much for another in-depth and thoughtful breakdown. I love how The Academy can charge extortionate prices simply to send an email but this small indie film with no money is breaking rules for people actually watching it and appreciating the art. Lord.
Once again Dan has me watching a 30+ minute video on a movie I'll never watch starring an actress I don't know nominated for an award I don't care about. But Dan is always entertaining regardless of the subject.
Ditto! Except she was Vikka/Victoria from “Oblivion”, which suffered box-office wise because it was being released during Tom Cruises infamous “couch jumping on Oprah” during the publicity tour….. it’s a great movie! Same director as Top Gun: Maverick!
Hi Dan. Across 10+ years of using RU-vid I doubt I’ve left more than 5 comments. I really appreciated this video and felt compelled to leave a comment in this instance. With all the click bait and inflated internet outrage that is so prevalent now it’s often hard to get the facts. You have done the research and relayed that onto myself and thousands of others. This allows us to make our own informed opinions as opposed to regurgitating the surface level analysis on social media and in certain media outlets. I know you are always a reliable source having watched you on Screen Junkies and your own channel since 2015ish. Thank you for your hard work and the well informed content it produces
they always were. they can be fun to follow to predict the nominees and wins based on statistic and precursors. Everyone knows "best" anything is subjective. This isnt some final determining factor of a film's shelf life At the same time, they help bring more recognition to smaller films which can then help to forward a career. To Leslie is such a small movie and this is the moss buzz/discussion it ever received - getting a nomination for an Oscar. a movie's reputation doesnt live or die by the Oscars but it can help add to a movie's legacy.
This whole saga reminded me of when Javier Bardem got nominated for Biutiful after Julia Roberts, Sean Penn, and Michael Mann campaigned for him and/or hosted screenings. It's definitely different especially since he'd already been nominated a few times and won before, but there were similar elements: famous friends supporting an overlooked performance and publicly talking about how baffled they are that real talent is being ignored. Oh to have friends in high places! Also, I totally agree about Michelle Williams and Ana de Armas - i know they were seeing this whole thing play out last month just hoping they didn't get caught up in it loool
With social media giving the most attention to, and rewarding the very worst-behaved people it's important that there's people like you. You Sir are 100% a class act.
holy shitballs Dan. This is the first time I've felt involved, engaged but most of all educated on this issue. Thanks for taking the time to explain with such detail and passion
Re: article 7, props to Be Kind Rewind for pointing out that Netflix rented 2 soundstages in 2019 for a screening of Roma where guests were provided with breakfast and lunch. Run that comparison against McCormick's little party. Fair and even approach, Dan!
I agree that the narrative should not be about systemic racism vs Andrea, but it is and it is for good reason. Money is not the only barrier that black people face when it comes to your consideration. It definitely is good to see a large financial push to support black actresses and that is progress, however this moment shows how powerful personal connections are to take an unseen movie and make it seen. Black people feel unseen and it is much harder for something like a "Black" Andrea moment to occur in a system that supports who you know rather than who you are.
Thanks your thorough breakdown of this. You’re about the only person I trust to take a rational, researched perspective on this. 1) Mary McCormack’s networking ability is impressive! This is like the Riddler turning 500 online followers in to a militia impressive. 2) The rules of everything with the nomination process is broken. Yes, there are rules that this campaign certainly at least flirted with breaking…but I can’t blame someone for getting creative when the system is so skewed towards if you’re willing to pay, you get more play. 3) This nomination I think has the bad timing of coinciding with the optics of the Academy ignoring black actresses again. My initial feeling as well was that Deadwyler (whose performance also deserves a bigger spotlight) especially got her spot taken by someone who had a circle of rich friends. It’s more complicated than that and the Williams and De Armas nominations raise different questions. Neither Davis or Deadwyler getting nominated is a conversation, but one that Riseborough is not responsible for creating. And thank you for answering the question I had: Is she that good in To Leslie? Sounds like yes and sounds worth checking out. The question that we can’t answer: How many people that nominated her actually watched that performance before nominating her?
Seen a lot of misinformation going around about this topic lately i got so hype to see a Dan Murell video on it titled “Deep Dive” and 44 min long. Always can count on my man dan to break this down with nuance and impartiality
Dan! I paused watching my Colorado ZR2 videos to watch your brilliant take on this! Something I didn’t even know or care about is, for now, as fascinating as upper control arms, gear ratios and off road tires! Thanks, as always!
I've aspired my entire career to be as interesting as a versatile Chevrolet crew cab truck - you've made my dream come true! Thanks for the kind words.
Great work Dan, on preparing your 'screed'. Points well taken. I've seen TO LESLIE and agree, it should be seen. I'd go so far as to say it MUST be seen. Riseborough's performance is one the most powerful I've ever seen---and not only for the most dramatic moments in it. The film, too, is more than worthy of consideration. However this turns out, I hope it will mean that a lot of people will see the film, out of curiosity at first, and will come away very impressed and moved by it.
I would put money that most of those famous people didn’t even see this movie based on all the same wording in the all the copypaste for this movie. I have the movie and while the performance is good it’s definitely way over hyped. And no where near the level of Meryl Streep in Sophie Choice the greatest performance ever put on film level. Like they were trying to hype it
It’s definitely not the actresses fault. But it definitely reminds me of Ron Desantis saying he didn’t want children to be taught Black history because it makes them feel guilty. Andrea should absolutely be recognized. But the fact that Michele Williams was nominated for essentially a supporting role in a mediocre movie (although she was great) should give everyone pause. It’s not fair and I feel bad for Danny and Ms. Davis.
The real problem is the academy themselves. They don’t even watch most of the movies and seem to barely care about movies beyond their own egos. If you filled the academy with movie lovers than you wouldn’t have to throw parties to get them to screen a film or consider it. They would search out great films on their own.
You're the man Dan, thanks for clearing things up with this nomination and bringing all of the various implications to the forefront. It's definitely a tricky situation and some muddy waters but one thing is for sure the academy needs more representation and smaller films deserve a fighting chance. Happy award season and thanks Dan.
Anyone who saw "Till" as I did still think Danielle Deadwyler was robbed. I hope there's an upset at the SAG awards and she wins. to make up for this injustice.
This is a great video, thank you for making this, Dan. As much as I adoring Andrea Riseborough and happy that she got nominated, I thinks Mary Mccormack should take an accountibility because she did crossing the line big time and the Academy better need to changes the rule for campaigning because we're now see that the system has been broken. This is unacceptable. I only wish that Danielle Deadwyler and Viola Davis deserves to replace Ana de Armas and Michelle Williams at Best Actress nom, and then have Ms. Riseborough at the 5th place. That would makes people a lot more happy.
The Academy sucks in general so I shouldn't be too surprised but the nomination rubs me the wrong way not because of her performance but the fact that she got it so easily when two actresses of colour who gave incredible performances and campaigned hard for the nomination didn't. EDIT: Also, that Frances Fisher post...yikes. What a serious misuse of power.
Easily?? What part of this description of everything they did to try to spread the world and get people to watch this seemed "easy" to you? The whole point of this is that for non-big-budget movies/marketing budgets it is absurdly hard to get awards consideration. As Dan expressly stated, as to why they weren't nominated, you need to spend equal if not more time questioning why people like WIlliams and de Armas are there . @38:30
@@curtisbme I get the point about small budget films but the fact that a small budget film managed to get in with such a short promo campaign not to mention the questionable social media posts by a bunch of white people where as two much more publicized women of color who gave just as good if not better performances didn't is the problem. That's what is easy. The race issue is what's at the forefront. I also contest De Armas' and Williams' nomination but it's obvious why they got in. Spielberg films and "biographies" get a free pass as far as the academy is concerned. I only spoke about Riseborough cuz she was the point of discussion.
Love seeing this topic tackled from an informed place of having seen the performance in question. If it’s an Oscar caliber performance it should be up for consideration regardless of the scale of the project. Great video!
It’s certainly a popularity contest and who knows who in Hollywood, the spamming or mentioning of Andrea or the film I had no issue with, my main issue was Frances Fisher. She should be suspended.
Dan. long time listener, first time caller. I watched all 44:40 seconds of your video, and I get it. I really do. but it don't sit right with my spirit. I don't think Viola & Danielle were robbed. I think it was more of the same. I think there's still a "there can only be one" mentality within the academy, particularly in the acting categories, and that's how it played out. I don't fault Andrea Riseborough or the team of "To Leslie" for activating their network, and gaining momentum at the right time so that this indie film could be seen, but I do think most had Michelle as their "one" because 1 - Halle already won, and 2 - there were probably so sure that others voted for Danielle and/or Viola because they were a "lock." the Academy is as it's always been.
Very well-detailed work. You continue to get better. You are right, multi-million movie campaigns getting usurped by a social media campaign is just a weird accusation. And yes, if anything, this controversy raises the issue of the academy becoming a hub of multi-million dollar parties for studio movies and little budget indies just standing at the door of oscars, and being like, that's a nice party.
What a brilliant piece of journalism! I both fear and anticipate the inevitable realisation of your talent, by mainstream media, and the glorious high budget documentaries and starry interviews that will follow. Seriously, it's like the content was made just for me.
I think one thing most people have trouble with when any performer is nominated, is that if they aren't familiar with any of their other work, it's harder to judge their performance. In other words, are they just playing themselves, or are they really doing some acting? I watched To Leslie recently in that context of not knowing this actress' work. What I will say, is that at the end of this video at around the 40 minute mark, when Dan chooses a scene to highlight of her, that is a moment in the film where you are feeling for this character that this actress has created. And it works better in context than out of context, obviously, but after watching the film with a friend, I said "If the Oscars ever use film clips again when they are naming the actresses nominated on the program, I pointed to that same scene as to what should be shown.
Great in-depth video! I'm gonna have to disagree with you slightly that Riseborough is getting all the flak of the controversy. LOTS of people have been unfairly coming after de Armas for the reasons you mentioned (criticizing the movie and not the performance). She had about the same chance as Davis to get a nomination, in my opinion. I can go on and on about how Blonde is a masterpiece and it's a deserving nomination.
Andrea Riseborough has been in two of the same movie: The Hidden and Oblivion with Tom Cruise. A post apocalyptic survival flick about the last 2 survivors on planet Earth fighting monsters but learn that [SPOILERS... see it first. It's a good movie!] ...THEY are the bad guys! The monsters are just humans in masks! This "protagonist was unknowingly the villain" (or pawn of the villain) is almost a trope started by the book and movie versions of "I Am Legend" and appears in various forms in a dozen other movies such as "Extinction" with Michael Pena. But Andrea Riseborough did it twice! Impressive.
The point is that POC knew there would only be *one token nomination* for a POC. That’s the truth of the situation everyone in the inside knows is what is really going on. The token nom. is the least they expected for a number of equal performances.
I'm really starting to think that this year is going to be a repeat of 2018 when Olivia Coleman won Best Actress. Cate Blanchette and Michelle Yeoh are going to split the vote, leading to Andrea taking a surprise win. Especially now after this whole controversy, everyone's talking about To Leslie, everyone's telling their friends to watch To Leslie, and that's going to be the most relevant topic regarding the Best Actress category come Oscar night.
If Yeoh wins, the friendship with the president will probably become a more well-known story. Also, there will be complaints that she only won for woke diversity reasons or for her career rather than the quality of her nominated performance. Blanchett is likely winning, though. I’m whatever on the best actress race as a good performance will win regardless, but with Yeoh I’m more interested in her getting more recognition as one of the greatest female action stars. I still see videos or lists regarding female action stars that don’t mention her, probably because people generally aren’t that familiar with Hong Kong/Asian action movies.
She was fantastic in Posessor which was my favourite movie of 2020. Can't wait to see her in this movie and I am happy she got nominated regardless of how she got there!
The thing about the Academy that most don't understand is that is it just a trade show put on by people that put on shows. It's only purpose is to market the products sold by it's members. It only has prestige because the Academy decided they are the arbiters of what is "good" and everyone went along with it. A bunch of people sniftering their own farts want to put a sticker on their product that it won an award so they created one and voted to give it to their movie. It's dumb to put any more weight into an award from the Academy than you would car of the year.
Sure I agree with you, adjust the rules so quality films with lower budgets can be considered. Yes Fine. Do you also agree that they should adjust the rules so quality films made by and centering predominantly POC and THEIR stories, can also be considered? That problem has exist for MUCH longer, and obviously there’s never been much of a push, as I don’t recall ever reading about the Academy considering, or being pressured to consider, making adjustments to allow for greater exposure to such projects.
I think there’s been some advancement there. In the past several years, we’ve seen King Richard, Drive My Car, Minari, Judas and the Black Messiah, Roma, BlackKklansman, Hidden Figures, Fences and Black Panther nominated for Best Picture, along with wins for Parasite and Moonlight. We’ve also seen Oscars won by Mahershala Ali (2x), Viola Davis, Guillermo del Toro, Alfonso Cuarón, Regina King, Rami Malek, Bong Joon-ho, Chloe Zhao, Daniel Kaluuya, Youn Yuh-jung, Will Smith and Ariana DeBose in the acting and directing categories. I agree there’s work to be done, but there has been recognition of POC and stories about POC in recent Academy history, a trend that I’m hoping will continue. Even with the frustrations around this year’s acting nominees, the film with the most nominations is entirely centered around an Asian family.
@@DanMurrellMovies of course there is nuance to many of these examples. For instance the wins for "green book" "the help" "queen" though superficially seem to contradict my point, they actually support it, because those stories are not actually BY POC speaking to their unique experiences. But I understand your point overall, just think there's still a long way for the academy to go.
Nice episode Dan! The multi-million dollar campaign industry to promote nominees is an ongoing business that many people depend on for part or all of their living. This approach exploited loopholes and greyzones to help get Andrea Riseborough nomination directly, but clearly Mary McCormack hoped by doing so, it would help her husband's film and career. So it isn't that she is acting out of a pure love of art. There really need to be different "weight classes" for movies. Do you recall when the Lord of Rings Trilogy films were out there? They were in the same best picture category as films that were shot in a few weeks. C The way the loopholes and grey zones were exploited just highlighted the old adage of the importance of "who you know" is very important and further lowers the esteem of the Oscars which is already very low.
The performance didn’t catch on by just being a great performance. It caught on by a very well ran PR campaign. Pushed by pr firms and every well connected and influential people. Might I add while it’s good and even great but it’s definitely overhyped
@@kingkiller5325 you know how many ppl get well ran PR Oscars campaigns and yet still don’t get nominated. The performance has to stand on its own outside of the campaign no matter what. This performance wasn’t standing out until very famous people decided it was their job to make it
Thank you for this video. I agree with you on all points. I wasn’t sure about the details wrt the Academy rules broken but you’ve cleared them up for me. I also whole heartedly agree with your point about the other nominees not being questioned: Michelle Williams (wrong category) and Ana de Armas (bad movie). I understand why the Independent Spirit Awards exist but there is certainly a gap between the Indy Awards (which doesn’t carry the critical clout of the Oscars) and the Studio-biaised Oscars. I wonder if you could do a video on the film festival circuit. Sundance once held a foothold in that gap of critical space but it doesn’t seem to anymore.
IDK. Its odd people are so fixated and upset about this when the Academy Awards have much larger and systemic problems. This isnt a local election its a popularity contest (IDK maybe not the best wording) it seems people are mad someone used friendship and people actually caring and not just cold hard cash. seems odd.
I still say Michelle Williams & Ana de Armas should not be there, Michelle Williams shouldn’t even be in that category ti begin with.. I don’t think Andrea should be nominated, but neither should the other 2
301 feature films were deemed eligible for nominations the 95th Oscars, according to the Academy. Imagine if all 301 directors had their partner/spouse, manager, PR agent, best friend, etc., sending daily, possibly unsolicited emails from their personal accounts to Oscar voters, every day from November to January. Over time, that could add up to one voter receiving tens of thousands of campaign emails, potentially coming from hundreds of different email addresses. Most Academy campaign rules came to be after someone exploited previous loopholes, and the email stipulations are probably no different. With a clearinghouse system and once-a-week limits, the emails blasts seem much easier to manage for the voters compared to a more unfiltered free-for-all. The $2,000 fee is steep, maybe greedy on the Academy's part, but possibly also a deterrent that further cuts down on the totals messages sent. Even campaigns with money can't love paying the Academy 2K to send out one email.
The biggest controversy about the Oscars for me is this continued reference to "award season", because it proves that the Oscars isn't about the best films. Its about the best films from a small number of genres that release in a 3 month window of the year. If you're an action film, or a horror film, or a sci-fi film, and you release in the spring or the summer, forget it. No matter how good you are, you're not getting the big awards for acting or directing or best film, because you're not true film, you're beneath the Oscars. Maybe we'll give you visual effects or sound, etc so you can feel included.
“Award season” generally refers to the hundreds of film awards that are given at/after the end of the year. Part of the controversy is that actors like Deadwyler and Davis “met the precursors” by receiving many nominations and wins (and the associated “work” of attending, interviewing etc) from non-friend groups like professional creative guilds, critics associations and film festivals (who do consider smaller independent films, many of these groups are dedicated to small and independent, and are far less influenced by moneyed campaigns, some are ranked vote and some are juried) whereas Riseborough did not. Having a large consensus among the a size-able swath of the industry suggests Oscar recognition is deserved and legitimate. I think “awards season” is actually the main thing that lends credibility to the whole endeavor.
Maybe the rules that should be under review in the first place are the ones where you have to pay to get noticed in the first place. Get rid of the "for your consideration" thing altogether, put up screeners of all eligible movies to the members and be done with it, basically?
Fantastic analysis on the matter. I feel bad that Riseborough could potentially and unfairly be thrown under the bus for this, simply for championing a very small movie with no budget for campaigning.
Without seeing To Leslie, Ana de Armas and Michelle Williams are two who don't belong. The Blonde is not a bad movie saved by a good performance, the Blonde is a horrible movie from which only Ana de Armas came out not looking bad because of a good performance. But the problematic nature of the movie should have made voters more aware not to give it an accolade. Michelle Williams in NOT a lead in her movie and is in wrong category. Not to mention that TWO black actresses were shut out and there's only one Andrea Riseborough. It implies that most people were ranking only one of them high, or at all, because one black actress is enough for diversity, right? Or were they thinking that Michelle Yeoh was enough diversity? Was Ana de Armas, who was born on Cuba, a diversity pick for some? Only five Latina actresses including de Armas were nominated an none win so far. Did that for some merit listing her higher than Danielle Deadweyler or Viola Davis? Yeah, the Academy definitely has a diversity problem that should be addressed, however none of it's the fault of Andrea Riseborough or the people campaigning for her.
Like Dan says they violated rule 10 and, almost assuredly, 7 but everyone’s been saying what’s the problem? Riseborough’s performance is kinda moot here. Her performance could be or couldn’t be nomination worthy, but there are at least two clear violations here. If a runner’s trainer spikes their water with ped’s, does the runner still get to keep the trophy? It seems unfair to punish the runner who may have unwittingly taken it, but Riseborough was present at the party that was thrown. It’s also kind of fallacious to say, “well, they mounted a campaign, but bc it was effective through social media instead of traditional means, it doesn’t count.” (Even then, the rules do specifically mention social media). And Dan points out how the Oscars group in charge of these rules are given broader powers to sorta do whatever they want, but the rules are in print and the powers they’re given is to be able to allow flexibility where the laws don’t keep up with technology. Finally, a lot of the argument is that Riseborough deserves the nomination. Ok, so did others. The question here isn’t about whether she deserves it, it’s whether or not her or the people around her unduly influenced, by violating the rules (of which Dan thinks two were 7 and 10) bc that can lead to an unfair advantage. And, sure, people can play what aboutisms about bigger studios or bigger players influencing and campaigning for other films, but that’s just saying, “But, officer, look at all those other speeders breaking the speed limit!” If a candidate won office during an election in which a bunch of his or her supporters stood outside of polling stations using whatever methods to vote for candidate X and X wins, the argument that it’s bc candidate X deserved it is a weak argument at best and, naturally, casts doubt on the results. The issue here is that there is no doubt that Riseborough had people in her corner doing this and it’s kinda almost disturbing just how many people have just glossed over this.
I watched more minutes of this video than I have of any oscar ceremony in I don't even know how many years. And yet another reason to be uninterested in this award show and process. It's good to honor members for a job well done, but as a moviegoer myself, an academy award doesn't make me any more or less likely to watch a film. The show itself, the last attempt I made to watch, it was too long and not super interesting. The fairness of any of these major awards is always a little questionable, and ultimately very subjective. I'll continue to decide what's "best" for me and watch accordingly.
i appreciate the breakdown and certainly don't think riseborough or her people did anything majorly wrong-- if there are gaps or loopholes in the rules, it's not her or her people's fault for using those to give their small indie film whatever advantage it can get against the big tentpole films with million-dollar FYC campaigns. it's the academy's fault for leaving those gaps and loopholes open in the first place. that said, the complaints about davis and deadwyler's lack of a nomination, though some people did take it out on riseborough as the lowest-hanging fruit (and that sucks), there is nuance to the racial aspect of it, too, that i don't think you got far enough in to address. the problem is not that riseborough used a grassroots campaign to get the nomination; the problem is that even WITH million-dollar studio-level FYC campaigns, the black actresses STILL don't get nominated. so what is it going to take?? even IF the academy equalizes the campaigning process on a financial level so that big studio movies and small indie films compete on a level playing field, that only means black and PoC actresses will make up a smaller and smaller fraction of the nominees, just like segregation in US schools got worse when integration measures were eliminated, or how non-targeted financial incentives almost always end up benefitting mostly poor white families while the share of marginalized communities under the poverty line only goes up. racial color blindness is a nice ideal, but it doesn't work in reality. not yet, at least. and again, i don't think any of this is andrea riseborough's fault-- i definitely don't think her nom ought to be rescinded-- i just don't think one can solve the "class" divide within the film industry (big studios vs small indies) without addressing the racial divide, just as it happens in wider society. i dislike billionaires and big corporations as much as the next person, but getting rid of them does not guarantee that everyone will be treated equally. this is why intersectionality is critical in all equality movements. these things can't be addressed separately, and it's unfortunate that it happened to fall on andrea riseborough's year, but it's good that it's being called out. plus, i kind of understand the icky feeling there is to it, given that we've just closed the door on a year where the "nepo baby" debate was at its peak. i understand you would do the same for your wife's film if you were in the same circumstances-- as would any loving partner-- but one can't ignore the fact that your contacts in the industry, or hell, in the SPECIFIC ACADEMY BRANCH that would give your wife's film its nomination, are not quite the same as mary mccormack's. so i can understand why people feel squicked by it; it smells a little too much like the nepo baby privilege (which is not to say nepo babies can't be talented, but rather an acknowledgement that they have a leg up on getting their talent recognized). it's just another game of who has the right contacts. it's another advantage that, maybe not davis and deadwyler, but let's say a newcomer black actress on a small indie film, does not have. so i'm not surprised regular people (not in the industry) have an instinctive displeased reaction to something that at least on paper reads so similar. i think the thing for me is, if this was just an innocent campaign to get riseborough's performance recognized and seen by as many eyes as possible, why does it feel that it only started in earnest in the lead-up to the oscars? riseborough didn't get any traction during the awards season at large, and as you said, it was only after the independent spirit awards nomination that it really started going. the movie premiered in march 2022. why was the FYC campaign only focused on the oscars? it doesn't seem like a stretch to think that it's because the oscar nominations are decided by the group mary mccormack has more access to/influence with: actors. and that being a possibility makes it seem like much less of an innocent "friends! please watch my husband's movie?" thing and more of a carefully stretegized "this is our best shot at getting a nom" plan, just as frances fisher's "this is how many votes we need" instagram post was. and though having awards ambitions is still not against the rules, it does come off to the average joe that you're not just doing it because you think the movie is great and want people to see it, but rather because you want the accolades. i can kind of understand why some people are repulsed by that. is it logical? probably not. but art, and our response to it, doesn't have to be logical. PS: ana de armas is hispanic. i know the marilyn monroe movie wasn't very well-received (i haven't watched it, nor do i plan to, but i've gathered as much from the internet), but her performance has been generally praised and she's had a pretty significant presence in this awards season. those two aspects CAN be taken separately, and i think it's unfair to imply that a PoC actress should be the one that clearly doesn't belong among the best performances of the year just because the rest of the movie wasn't as good as her performance was.
I haven't seen it yet, but if somebody like Blanchett calls it out (and giving her the benefit of the doubt that she had actually seen it), I would wager it was worthy of a nomination at the very least
Is it fair to criticize the inherent racist nomination of the white lady with a reportedly large group of white contacts in Hollywood to be preferred over two black ladies that are less likely to be taken seriously by Hollywood? I mean I think by being white she has the advantage, so it is fair to criticize her.
I can see that case being made for Danielle Deadwyler, but Viola Davis has been nominated for 4 Oscars (two Best Actress, two Best Supporting, 1 win), 4 BAFTAs (three Actress, one Supporting, 1 win), 7 Golden Globes (1 win), 5 Emmys (1 win), 11 SAG Awards (6 wins), 3 Tonys (2 wins) and just won a Grammy, which elevated her to EGOT status, an honor which only 18 people have ever achieved competitively. How exactly is Hollywood not taking her seriously?
The reason I love Dan is his investigative journalism approach to cover films! So well-researched and detailed. I don’t see any other RU-vid channels doing this kind of work. I as film nerds appreciate it so much.
@@ZachBobBob I don't agree with it but I guess because Michelle and Ana's names were already floated as possible noms people don't see it that way, because Andrea's nom came out of left field for most people they see it as her taking a spot from another woman in this case a black woman which is the entire reason people are talking about it.
Everyone is blaming Andrea Riseborough for Viola Davis and Danielle Deadwyler not getting a nomination, but I think Michelle Williams and Ana de Armas should be getting more of the heat. It confounds me that they both got noms over Davis and Deadwyler. Williams isn't doing anything special that we haven't seen before, and Blonde was mostly panned. Why did they get in?
Especially given that Michelle Williams is in the STEVEN SPIELBERG FILM 🤯🤯 it's insane to me how many people are talking about this story and going on and on about privilege this and networks that, while COMPLETELY REFUSING to call out the single most powerful man in Hollywood for using HIS network and clout and influence to push Michelle Williams in a category for which many don't even think she should be eligible.
I have seen lots of criticism on Ana’s nomination though. Idk how Dan didn’t come across any of that. As for Michelle Williams, I can admit that haven’t seen much discourse on that. Haven’t seen the fabelmans yet though so I cannot say much about that
Blonde was not received well, but her performance is stunning. De Armas took a big swing and hit it out of the ball park. This was a very competitive year with great work from alot of actresses, many of whom were deserving of nominations as well - Olivia Coleman, Tang Wei, Vicki Krieps, Emma Thompson Naomi Ackie.... But only 5 can get in.
Michelle Williams is one of those actresses that once she got nominated the first time, she will always be nominated going forward. Even for roles in which she does nothing special.
Also Ana de Armas, no matter how amazing her imitation of Marilyn was - did not have a great emotional range to perform with the script and direction she was given. She was incredibly good at having quiet, sad breakdowns... but what else? This was not a oscar nom performance because Armas was forced to be one note. I cannot get over her nomination. It is not deserved and that isn't due to her talent, it's the production itself hindering her talent.
I mean, yeah. Obviously. Who doesn't think this besides people that only watch TikTok and are 13? This just seems like such an insanely obvious statement to me.
42:12 "Are going to make it increasingly difficult for smaller movies... to breakthrough to members of the Academy" and likely make it even harder for African American Women to get a Best Actress nomination. You're correct and the Academy is going to fumble this so hard.
